October 2026
PROBLEM
America’s public schools are failing millions of children, especially poor and minority kids in our biggest cities, creating frustration among parents, fueling housing crises in “good” school districts, and incentivizing the creation of poorly regulated for-profit alternatives. We should be pulling out all the stops to fix them. Instead, in too many places, the priority has not been fixing the schools, but keeping a particular vested interest happy – teachers’ unions. The reason is simple: teachers’ unions wield enormous political influence, especially in Democratic states and cities. Unlike private-sector unions, which bargain with employers, public-sector unions negotiate with elected officials whom they often help put into office. That gives them enormous leverage to demand concessions, including what they will teach and under what conditions; how they are evaluated and who can see those results; protection from discipline and limits on their dismissal; compensation ladders based on seniority rather than merit. The list goes on. Two decades ago, leaders across the political spectrum fought for accountability, school choice, and reforms to teacher compensation and tenure. Educational outcomes improved and racial achievement gaps narrowed. But unions resisted these changes, and Democrats in particular eventually gave up.
The results have been bleak. Academic achievement has stagnated or declined, with especially big losses since the pandemic. And money alone isn’t the answer. Michigan spends roughly $6,000 more per student than Mississippi; New York spends roughly $13,600 more than Mississippi. Yet Mississippi’s fourth graders outperform their counterparts in both states in reading and math.
The key problem is that teachers’ unions exist to protect teachers – and what’s good for teachers is not always good for kids.
IDEA
To better align the interests of unions and teachers, states should amend their collective bargaining laws to change what is “bargainable.”
Today, in many states, teachers’ unions can bargain over all the terms and conditions of employment. As a result, unions flex their organizational muscle in ways that make it very difficult to fix failing schools. They strongly oppose paying teachers more for excellent performance. They insist on stringent processes that make it next-to-impossible to remove teachers for lackluster performance. They demand “last in, first out” rules that require layoffs to hit the newest teachers, even if they’re highly qualified. On top of discipline and work rules, unions push for hefty pensions and health benefits that privilege the interests of senior teachers at the expense of new recruits.
Teachers’ unions should be limited to bargaining over base wages, which are the most important factor in encouraging high-quality recruits to enter the teaching professions. Unions should not have the authority to bargain over staffing decisions, teaching evaluations and dismissals, instructional arrangements, or compensation arrangements that interfere with effective school management. Those decisions would be left in the hands of elected representatives and school officials. Those leaders can then be held accountable for adopting measures that have been shown to improve student outcomes, including evidence-backed curricula and high-impact tutoring programs.
THE BIG PICTURE
Education is arguably the most important and fundamental service government provides. It can change the trajectory of a child’s life and open up opportunities they would otherwise never have. This is what government is supposed to do, and it should do it well. When government is not succeeding, then we need to ask ourselves why, and change our approach. In too many instances, school systems have moved away from prioritizing the interests of students to prioritizing the interests of other constituencies. By refocusing our attention on how we can serve the needs of young people, and ultimately their life outcomes, we are doing the fundamental work of government, and reminding people that it is their interests that are paramount.
EXPECTED OUTCOME
If unions were limited to bargaining over base wages, school districts would have more authority to place teachers where they are needed most, to hold bad teachers accountable for their performance, to reward classroom excellence, and to guarantee that students are taught a high-quality curriculum. Better-managed schools are better-run schools, which will improve student outcomes on core measures of learning. At the same time, reform efforts that were previously stymied by teachers’ unions could take root. If school administrators and education officials actually have authority and responsibility for outcomes, they can be held accountable for those outcomes.
EVIDENCE
The “Mississippi Miracle” demonstrates what state leadership in the absence of resistance from teachers’ unions can accomplish. Between 2013 and 2024, the state rose from 49th to ninth nationally in fourth-grade reading scores, and from 50th to 16th in math. Louisiana and Tennessee have also made impressive gains.
Contrary to popular belief, these results aren’t about the science of reading (if they were, math scores would not have increased). They reflect sustained efforts by state officials to get districts to adopt effective instructional materials, train teachers to use them, and ensure that those materials are actually used in classrooms. Such reforms require educational authorities to exercise meaningful control over instruction. Crucially, these states don’t have collective bargaining laws for teachers.
The broader research on teachers’ unions also raises concerns. A major review by Joshua Cowen and Katharine Strunk found that unionization increases school expenditures and teacher compensation, particularly for experienced teachers, without producing improvements in student achievement. A more recent review by Bradley Marianno reaches broadly similar conclusions. Unions reliably increase costs, but their effects on academic achievement are generally negligible or slightly negative.
Experience in Wisconsin is especially compelling. Fifteen years ago, the legislature passed a law, Act 10, limiting teachers’ rights to collectively bargain over anything except base wages. After a rocky initial rollout, Act 10 appears to have improved student performance.
- Barbara Biasi, a Yale economics professor, found that districts that dropped seniority-based pay in favor of a more flexible approach saw their test scores increase.
- Morgan Foy of the University of Illinois found similar gains in test scores and attendance even in districts that didn’t adopt a flexible pay scale. (He suspects teachers worked harder when unions couldn’t protect them from discipline.)
- And E. Jason Baron at Duke has shown that the promise of higher entry-level wages improved the talent pool by attracting more young Wisconsinites into the teaching profession.
CONSIDERATIONS
The chief benefit of this idea is that schools could be oriented toward serving the interests of children, not the interests of teachers. Limiting what’s bargainable does not guarantee that schools will improve, but it removes an important barrier to reform.
There are downsides. Restricting collective bargaining would make it easier to discipline and remove teachers, increasing the possibility of favoritism and arbitrary treatment. But the risk is more modest than opponents sometimes suggest: civil rights law already prohibits discriminatory dismissals, and in most states, teacher-tenure laws independently protect experienced teachers from arbitrary termination. Union-negotiated disciplinary processes add delay and paperwork without commensurate benefits.
The biggest obstacle is political. Teachers’ unions are arguably the single most powerful interest group in the Democratic Party tent. Especially in primary elections in areas with noncompetitive general elections, they can make or break candidates. Overcoming their opposition to reform will be extremely challenging.
POLLING
Recent polling from Searchlight and Tavern Research suggests that a very large majority of the public, including a majority of Democrats, support holding public workers accountable for their job performance. After hearing basic arguments for and against strong protections for protecting public sector workers, for example, roughly two-thirds of voters support making government jobs more like private sector jobs. Reinforcing the point, David Broockman and Josh Kalla have found that one of the top-performing messages for Democrats who want to improve their electoral prospects is “teacher accountability.”
Yet even as the public appears skeptical of the job protections that teachers’ unions press for, the public is broadly sympathetic to the unions. Recent polling from the Public Policy Institute of California, for example, finds that two-thirds of Californians approve of teachers’ unions, including 83% of Democrats. And a 2018 poll from Ipsos and NPR similarly found that about two-thirds of the public supports teachers’ unions – even as two-thirds of the public also thinks that teachers’ unions make it harder to fire bad teachers.
FAQ:
Who is likely to support this idea?
Parents who are frustrated with poorly performing schools, education reform organizations, school administrators, and elected officials who want greater flexibility to improve public education. The proposal could also appeal to younger teachers who would benefit from compensation systems that place less weight on seniority.
Reform efforts could attract bipartisan support. Republicans have generally been more willing to limit public-sector bargaining, but Democrats have a particular interest in showing that the government can deliver effective public services.
Who is likely to oppose this idea?
Teachers’ unions, especially the National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers and their state affiliates, would almost certainly lead the opposition. Other public-sector unions would likely worry about the precedent, while Democratic politicians closely aligned with progressive groups or organized labor would face intense pressure to resist the change.
Would this proposal eliminate teachers’ unions?
No. Teachers would retain their ability to organize and they would be authorized by law to collectively bargain over base wages. As such, they would still retain power to influence elections. All that would change is the scope of that bargaining.
Why not just spend more money on schools?
Money matters, particularly for attracting excellent teachers and serving disadvantaged students. But school spending does not reliably track school performance. Some of the best-performing schools in the nation are in states with the lowest per capita spending, and vice-versa. As the Mississippi Miracle suggests, effective reforms will need to target instructional quality and teacher accountability.